Protect, Save Marriage? An Inflection Point and Defining Moment?

California is the primary battlefront for freedom and liberty in our society today and it is getting a little ugly. Even so, in the midst of it there are no surprises. Many have read this blog and our advocacy for Proposition 8. Let me be clear, Proposition 8 consists of fourteen (14) words:

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California."

That is it. And yet, many in California are confused, why? There are two forces at play, the Protect Marriage Coalition advocating a YES vote on Proposition 8, and a Save Marriage advocacy group supporting a vote No on Proposition 8. Unfortunately, truth has become a situational standard in our society today. When many speak of truth it is no longer a constant, but a variable changing in the societal winds as they blow to and fro. The battle over Proposition 8 proves the point.

The Save Marriage advocacy that supports a "no" vote, does so by deception, guile and oblique lies (maybe not so oblique) and innuendo. How can they save something that eludes them, when in fact their actions are contrary to marriage as it is known today? How can they save something that they have redefined and fail to understand?

Marriage in California and in our nation has been recognized as that between one man and one woman. It is grounded in religion and tradition through the ages. It is the basis and foundation of our society and many throughout the world, given tenderly of our loving Heavenly Father for the procreation, joy and happiness of man. It has not been defined by the State, but recognized in its original form by the State as a "status." It is not within the State's authority to redefine, but in the people's charge. The same gender attraction community would have us believe otherwise, arguing their disenfranchisement, hence their judicial appeals. The same gender attraction community has gone to the extreme to promote their cause as "saving marriage" when in fact, they seek to redefine and destroy it as it is known today. A vote "no" or against Proposition 8 sets in motion the very dilution and destruction of marriage as we know it in our society, hence the lie perpetrated in their slogan. The subtleties in our society have become the destructive forces that when we look back have wreaked havoc beyond measure.

Our hope is to truly "Protect Marriage" with a Yes vote on Proposition 8, and in doing so, preserve the very familial foundation of our society; to preserve the fundamental religious freedom and liberty upon which our nation was founded. It is interesting to note that in the founding of our nation, born in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that followed, we are a nation established under the purview of our Creator and governed by moral and natural law (of which traditional marriage is fundamental). The unalienable rights established in the Declaration of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are within the bounds of our Creator, even God. The disruptive thought of our nation's founding was in turning our nation from a secular state where the State was the supreme authority served by the people (as in Great Britain under King George), to a moral and natural law state under the fundamental principles of God where the People were the supreme authority served by the State. When we undertake to undermine the freedoms and liberties established at the founding of our nation, wherein we defer to the State (or Judiciary) to legislate and deny the very freedoms and liberties granted, i.e., religious freedom, we become a secular nation where the State becomes the master and the people the servant. The issues rest with the People for determination and not the State, for the State is a protector of the People not a determinant.

Yes, Proposition 8 is an inflection point, even a defining moment in our nation. We must preserve the very principles of freedom at our nation's founding, respecting the rights, privileges and liberties of all, without compromise the fundamental and basic unit of our nation, the family and traditional marriage as it is known between one man and one woman. If we fail to pass Proposition 8 with a "YES" vote, we subordinate religious freedom and the people to the State; we deny certain children the blessing and right of a father and mother; we destroy the principles of moral and natural law upon which our nation was founded; and, we become a secular state subject to judicial interpretation and subjection where the people are subordinate.

I had an interesting conversation with someone the other day who indicated in his conversation with the opponents to Proposition 8 that if Proposition 8 failed to pass, polygamy would become legal in California. To which the individual objected saying that polygamy is morally reprehensible. Well? It is true, without a specific definition as noted above, we will be faced with the legality of same sex marriage, polygamous marriage and whatever else man can devise. For the opponents of Proposition 8 to find polygamy immoral, well? Even so, it is all about families and children.

A good friend noted today in our conversation, "Reserve marriage for procreative relationships and let civil unions take care of themselves, vote YES on Proposition 8."

Market Upheaval and Politics

The global capital markets have provided an interesting and even scary ride this past week. Market upheavals are never fun, nor are they sought for events. Even so, given the nature of man, market upheavals are necessary events in our domestic and global societies. Market corrections are necessary because we tend to push the envelope and reach beyond reasoned bounds. To many this week has been revelatory and has exposed the excesses in our capital market society. Some have said that this past week was like unto the depression of 1929, really? Yes, we have been here before, and we will be here again - such is the nature of markets. You only get hurt on a roller coaster if you jump off. As scary as the ride may be, we usually arrive safely where we began. The rule in market corrections is not to jump off and endure the ride.

In spite of these corrections, our markets and economies are fundamentally strong. Foundationally, they are built on correct free market and economic principles, proven and tested over time. Notwithstanding, the US Treasury can meet its measure by needed intercession to restore market confidence if the corrections are perceived as potentially irreparable. In its bailout of AIG, the Treasury acted appropriately. The shareholders and management of AIG will bear the consequence of their folly, but given the security and equity interests taken, liquidity restored and markets stabilized the Treasury (US taxpayers) will benefit handsomely when AIG is repatriated in the free market.

I can recall in the mid 70's when mortgage rates were at 15%, overnight bank rates exceeded 20%, the 20 year Treasury Note hit 9%, the DJIA was around 600, the government stepped in an bailed out Chrysler with $1.2 billion in loan guaranties, and many thought we were doomed. Many thought the Chrysler bailout was a failed policy in spite of the nearly $500 million in profit to the Treasury in later years. The policy wasn't a failed policy as it restored confidence in the markets. The failed policy was the auto industry's unwillingness to change its much needed business strategy, thinking it could continue business as usual. Again in the 1980's we faced the S&L crisis which cost the nation dearly. The government bail out the S&L industry, again, was critical in restoring market confidence. Even so, what did we learn? Very little. The unfortunate consequence of past corrections is always reflected in future events. Corrections reset the bar but have done little to change the underpinning nature of the players. Hopefully, this correction will cause us to learn from our errant behaviors, although unlikely. An interesting article in the NY Times.

Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke, and their staffs at the Treasury and Fed, have served us well in this correction and confidence is on course to restoration. Unlike the protestations of Senator Obama this correction doesn't rest at the feet of George Bush. It rests at the doorstep of our investment banks, insurers and commercial banks. Further, John McCain's inappropriate call for the head of Christopher Cox reflects our societies wont for a scapegoat. Without doubt, the management of Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, Bear Stearns and Lehman have been caught in their own trap, and we have had to endure the ride. In spite of it all, the system works. If any regulation is sought, is should be principle based and set the bar of consequence upon those who are responsible before we get beyond the breach. Let us be measured and not throw the baby out with the bath water. We needn't over regulate, but establish capital adequacy ratios and define assets and liabilities in a manner so as to assure our financial institutions (investment banks, insurers and commercial banks) are secure and competitive in the global market.

Having spent the past 30 years in the capital markets, and knowing the intracies and complexities of the markets that reach into every global sphere, whether through the derivative, debt or equity markets; of one thing I am certain, politicians are the last of any breed to try and regulate or oversee the fundamental economies of the world. Senators Obama and McCain, and their respective running mates, are not sufficiently resourced to respond, nor are most who lead our nation, whether in Congress or the White House. It is in their advisors, Secretaries of the Cabinet, Fed Chairman and other informed experts who are charged with a public trust that we can turn to for guidance in these matters, drawing further from the capital market industry. Let us hope for reason and capacity, and not political profferings as we weather these economic storms.

Surely, we will see future corrections, and most likely more often. Therefore, it is incumbent upon all Americans to be measured, reasoned and conservative in their financial houses - not reaching beyond our capacities and setting our storehouses in order to better enable our enduring of the storms ahead. We must limit our personal debts, set aside capital reserves, improve the depth of our food stores and live with prudence and within our means.

If only the American people could have seen and accepted the much needed capacity of Mitt Romney. Of any who have sought the office of POTUS, he understands the economic markets we face, and if we have any issue in this election, it is the economy, stupid!

Interesting Strategy - Blame Bush!

It is interesting to note, when observing the political strategy and consequential rants of Barack Obama, that in all things he blames George Bush. Obama must feel the key to his success, in his run for POTUS, is in being the anti-Bush. For he has clearly defined his strategy of running against George Bush and not John McCain. Rather than proffer his own experience, credentials and visions (of which he has few), he runs principally on the anti-Bush ticket, claiming that his opponent, John McCain, is Bush incarnate and a third term thereof.

President Bush isn't without criticism on certain points, especially given his failure to hold Congress (Republican or Democratic) accountable, and thus squandering an opportunity to limit the size of government. Even so, the responsibility must rest with Congress, for Congress has failed our nation, not the President. He could and should have done more, but it doesn't excuse the failings of our Legislative branch.

That being said, the positive things done under the leadership of George Bush are significant, and America should be grateful for his leadership in America's Midnight Moments. Under President Bush, we have had no further destructive terrorist attacks on our land; when our economy was under serious threat, because of 9/11, President Bush led our nation in an economic recovery unlike any before, with tax cuts, and economic policies that favored all Americans. Under President Bush, America has flourished and grown, both domestically and internationally, with the strongest economy in the world, in spite of recent travails. Yes, he has led us in war, which could have been managed with greater acuity - even so, America has stood on principles of democracy and taken nothing unto itself, even giving the last measure of what has made America great, the lives of its soldiers in the defense of righteousness. Under President Bush, America has dedicated in excess of $30 billion to aid and attend the suffering of many in Africa, something President Clinton and those who have preceded him have not done.

Appreciating that the media has done all in its power and influence to undermine and diminish President Bush, even to providing foundation for Obama's strategy of Blaming Bush - I am perplexed!

Why is it that George Bush is responsible for:

-Irresponsible spending, even to ballooning the national debt by $3 trillion, when it is Congress that approves and legislates such?

-The current economic crisis, when it is Congress that has legislated and enabled lax lending and credit standards, even giving expanded capacity to the markets? It is not President Bush that has instilled the reckless actions of Wall Street and the underpinning greed thereof, it resides with the barons of Wall Street and their pursuit of return without consideration of the inherent risks. It is the American people who share responsibilty for living beyond their means, not the President of the United States. We are a people who have chosen not to take responsiblity, but to place the blame at the feet of George Bush and his "failed policies." Let us all stand accountable, recognizing that our choices, be we the barons of Wall Street, or sub prime borrowers, come with consequence. It is easy to blame others, but haven't we become caught up with excess?

-The corruption of politicians, both Republican and Democrat, when it remains with the individuals who have acted in violation of the law?

-The rampant expansion of lobbyists and undue influence in Congress, when it is Congress that is accountable for self governance and ethics?

-The failed auto industry and challenges in the economy's of Michigan, Ohio and the rust belt, when it is the Governors and state legislators that are responsible for their self determination and state economic models?

Barack Obama is so bent on painting such a bleak picture for the future of America, putting all responsibility on George Bush and the Republicans, that it has become ridiculous. Before long, it will be George Bush's fault that the NY Yankess failed to make the playoffs. It could become a new mantra in society when anything has gone wrong that somehow it is George Bush's fault. If you lose your job, fail to lose weight, trip and fall, or struggle with computer skills - it must be George Bush's fault.

Some attest to Barack's intelligence and it is his intelligence that is going to save us. Wake up America, Barack Obama is incapable of saving us! Observe and listen to what Barack is saying - all things rest at the feet of George Bush, and none of it is good. What happened to hope for our future - does it all rest at the feet of Barack Obama? Is he going to take credit for fixing every ill or every problem we face, individually or in society? Look who is supporting him? Do we really feel that Hollywood represents what is good in our nation? Are the uneducated actors in Hollywood really that astute to know how to save our dying America? Really?

Barack Obama epitomizes the failings of our current entitled society - he believes in "choice" without responsibility and accountability, he believes in "tolerance" as acceptance even if in violation of core values and not respect, which is what tolerance is, he believes in equality without consideration of the price that is paid for such. Barack Obama's economic policies, if employed, will severely damage our economy, but like unto Jimmy Carter's destructive economic policies, we can overcome such in a few short years - we are a resilient nation. Even so, we will not so easily overcome Barack's social and cultural agenda. It will take us 40-50 years, if even then, to overcome his appointments to the judiciary of advocates that undermine our freedoms like unto the California Supreme Court in their decision to redefine marriage to the subordination of religious freedom to the lifestyle of those with same gender attraction.

John McCain may not be all that we want in a leader, but of all things, he understands the principles and foundations of Freedom and will stand as a defender of what is right.

The Palin Query?

A day doesn't pass where the question isn't asked, what about Sarah Palin? If the polls are to be believed (a stretch), McCain's gambit has paid off so far - he is now up in the Gallup Poll by 3% and Zogby by 4%. Even so, we still have just shy of a couple of months before we really know.

In my heart of hearts, I hope for a McCain/Palin Presidency as the alternative is frightening beyond measure. If, at the end of the day, we are relegated to an Obama/Biden Presidency, with a strong Democratic majority in the houses of Congress, with certainty we will suffer economically; windfall profits taxes on oil companies, increased capital gains tax, eliminating the upper limit on social security withholdings (a significant tax increase), increased personal taxes on anyone making over $150,000, a ballooned national debt to cover social initiatives, and on and on. Even so, an economic consequence of Obama can be overcome within a reasonsed period of time, believing that Obama will be like unto Carter and serve only one disasterous term. The greater concern lies within the cultural and social shifts we will suffer on the slippery slope of society's situational standards. The judicial appointments, both Federal and Supreme, will take nearly 40-50 years to recover from, if then.

Hence, my concern for McCain's recent choices, with a hoped for validation of his selection in Sarah Palin. I hold Charles Krauthammer in great regard, as he eloquently elucidates on critical points of worth in this election cycle. There are few who can compete with his intellect and understanding. He makes a great point in this recent Washington Post Opinion. It looks as if we have a short wait, as long as it may seem, before we truly know if McCain's gamble paid off. Here's to hope for a wise electorate that can see the lack of substance and serious failing in an Obama administration. If not, heaven help us all!

Defense of Marriage - Proposition 8 in California

Six Consequences If Proposition 8 Fails

1. Children in public schools will be taught that both traditional marriage and same-sex marriage are okay.

The California Education Code already requires that health education classes instruct children about marriage. (§51890)

Therefore, if the definition of marriage is changed, children will be taught that marriage is a relation between any two adults. There will be serious clashes between the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children their own values and beliefs.

2. Churches will be sued if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious buildings that are open to the public. Ask whether your pastor, priest, minister, bishop, or rabbi is ready to perform such marriages in your chapels and sanctuaries.

3. Religious adoption agencies will be challenged by government agencies to give up their long-held right to place children only in homes with both a mother and a father. Catholic Charities in Boston has already closed its doors because of the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.

4. Religions that sponsor private schools and which provide housing for married students will be required to provide housing for same-sex couples, even if it runs counter to church doctrine, or lose tax exemptions and benefits.

5. Ministers who preach against same-sex marriages will be sued for hate speech and could be fined by the government. It has already happened in Canada, one of six countries that have legalized gay marriage.

6. It will cost you money. A change in the definition of marriage will bring a cascade of lawsuits. Even if courts eventually find in favor of a defender of traditional marriage (highly improbable given today’s activist judges), think of the money – your money, your church contributions – that will have to be spent on legal fees.

And think of all the unintended consequences that we cannot even foresee at this time. Where will it end?

It’s your children, your grandchildren, your money, and your liberties.

Lets work together to protect them.

Join with us in walking precincts and phoning voters to vote Yes on Prop 8.

To a dear friend, GL, thanks for the enlightening consequences above.

Title of Liberty - Now Is The Time To Stand In Defense of Freedom!

Today we face a world in commotion and situational standards that tear at the very fabric of our Freedom and Liberty. Words and definitions have changed; "tolerance" has become acceptance and embrace - even if contrary to core values and principles, "choice" has become the entitlement of society without accountability and responsibility, and "equality" has come to mean that we are all entitled to what everyone else has irrespective of consequence, principles or liberties compromised. These redefinitions matter, for they have formed the basis for certain entitled generations in our society to undermine our freedoms and liberties.

Consider the point of our courts who have trampled upon our religious freedoms, allowing for the "disenfranchised" to subordinate religious freedom to their individual wants and desires. Consider the New Mexico couple who photograph weddings being compelled by the courts to pay damages to the Same-Gender-Attraction couple because they chose not to photograph their "union," or the private Christian fertility clinic in San Diego that was compelled, against their religious principles, to artificially inseminate a Same-Gender-Attraction woman, even though they willingly referred her elsewhere. We have stepped on that slippery slope and the consequences are devastating to what truly matters in society.

We face a defining moment in choosing the next POTUS. Our very freedoms and liberties are at stake. Many in society may be sufficiently cynical and opt out of the process, dismissing their vote altogether, and some may even diminish, privately or publicly, those who would exercise their right to vote. Some may say, "what's the use in even voting at all," it doesn't matter. On the contrary, IT MATTERS! Whether victorious in our hopes and desires for our candidate to become the next POTUS, it matters that we exercise our right and our God-given duty to stand in defense of freedom!

Consider what we face. As noted in the illustrations above, we have sufficiently strayed from the founding principles of our free society, in the name of "tolerance, choice and equality." We have one candidate running for POTUS who epitomizes the "entitled generation" and adopts the current attitudes of "tolerance, choice and equality," at the expense of our religious liberty. It is not to say he is a bad person, just misguided and sufficiently persuaded contrary to the founding principles of our nation. We have in another, an individual whose freedoms were denied earlier in his life - he understands and stands in defense of those founding principles. May we be wise and thoughtful and exercise our dutiful right and privilege! It Matters!

Must we give up our First Amendment Liberties?

Consistent with recent themes and the provocative query in an earlier comment from a reader, I believe that Mark Hemingway in his article below provides further validation of what is truly at risk. This is not simply about Marriage in California, as important as that is, this is about the freedoms and liberties that we share in our nation. (highlights added for emphasis)

Must we give up our First Amendment liberties?

MARK HEMINGWAY

If you’re strictly mercenary about it, the recent California supreme court decision legalizing same-sex marriage has its upside. According to a recent study by the UCLA School of Law, the ensuing rash of weddings is expected to pump $683.6 million into the state economy over the next three years. With movement toward legalizing same-sex marriage and civil unions across the country, it would seem to be a great time to be a wedding photographer.

But same-sex marriage is a complex issue, and nothing better illustrates that than the plight of the humble wedding photographer. “On the surface, this sounds like a gold mine for wedding photographers. But it’s actually more like a minefield,” explained photographer Sean Cayton on the photography website Black Star Rising. “You see, wedding photographers get most of their business from word-of-mouth and referrals. Many have close relationships with specific churches, which may have very strong beliefs for or against gay marriage.”

Of course, if you’re a wedding photographer who would like to avoid the minefield that might ensue should you offend churches in your community, you could end up stepping into another minefield that might be even more problematic — you might find yourself on the wrong end of a lawsuit.

In 2006, Vanessa Willcock filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission against a company called Elane Photography for refusing to photograph her gay commitment ceremony. The business is owned by a husband and wife — evangelical Christians who have made a decision not to photograph ceremonies related to gay unions. In April, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found against Elane Photography and ordered it to pay $6,637 for Willcock’s legal fees in bringing the complaint. The decision has been appealed.

Of course, Elane Photography is hardly alone. There’s been an effort in the courts not just to legalize gay marriage but to force acceptance of it as a matter of conscience and religious practice:

In Ocean Grove, N.J., a lesbian couple brought a complaint to the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights against a Methodist church for not allowing them to use a pavilion on the church’s beach-front property for their civil-union ceremony. The church had offered the couple use of its property and boardwalk for the ceremony, just not use of places the church considered “worship spaces.” In January, an administrative judge with the Division of Civil Rights found against the church and stripped the pavilion area of its tax-exempt status for the church’s refusal to comply with the state’s sweeping anti-discrimination law. This will reportedly cost the church some $20,000 a year. Notably, the tax exemption was tied to the church’s making its property publicly accessible, rather than to any religious criterion — but the Department of Environmental Protection managed to lift the Methodists’ exemption within one week of the complaint’s filing, even though it isn’t the agency in charge of lifting tax exemptions. The church is appealing the decision.

In California, the state supreme court is hearing a case against San Diego fertility doctors who are being sued because religious objections led them to refuse in vitro fertilization to a lesbian couple. Legal observers noted that the court — the same one that just legalized same-sex marriage — seemed hostile to the doctors’ defense during oral arguments in May.

In 2006, Catholic Charities in Boston stopped providing adoption services since state law would have compelled them to facilitate adoptions by same-sex couples. The archdiocese was prepared to provide referrals for same-sex couples looking to adopt, but that wasn’t acceptable to the state.

Same-sex marriage has turned out to be a fertile breeding ground for litigation. “The basic argument is: Once the state recognizes us as married, no private group outside of the sanctuary of the church is entitled to treat us otherwise, and various civil-rights laws banning discrimination over sexual orientation ought to take priority over religious liberty in every case,” says Marc D. Stern, general counsel of the American Jewish Congress and a contributor to the forthcoming book, “Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty.”

Opponents of same-sex marriage have long criticized it on the ground that it redefines what marriage actually is. In its recent decision legalizing same-sex marriage, the California supreme court noted that the state’s domestic-partnership law already gave gay couples “virtually all of the legal rights and responsibilities accorded married couples under California law.” And yet legal activists continued to push for “marriage.”

Stern makes clear that he’s not saying these legal issues are necessarily an argument against same-sex marriage. “I’m not saying that [people] ought to be opposed to gay marriage or that in every case the religious claim triumphs. But there really is a problem, in particular with regard to free speech. There are disturbing indications that in schools and elsewhere, certain views will become officially anathema.”

Stern notes that, outside the U.S., lawsuits and legislation ostensibly in favor of human rights have led to tighter restrictions on religious expression and religious institutions. In England, a Catholic school has been prohibited from firing an openly gay headmaster, and parochial schools there are forbidden by law to teach that homosexuality is a sin. In Canada, the Alberta Human Rights Commission recently took the draconian step of issuing a ruling forbidding a Christian pastor to make “disparaging” remarks about homosexuality — or even to repeat Biblical condemnations — for the rest of his life. And in 2005, the Knights of Columbus were fined by the British Columbia Human Rights Commission for refusing to rent their hall for a lesbian wedding. (These Canadian human-rights commissions are the same bodies of dubious legal authority in which National Review’s Mark Steyn and the Canadian newsweekly Maclean’s are currently under attack.)

And aside from threats to freedom of religious expression, there’s also the basic matter of free speech. Again, consider the wedding photographer. The Willcock complaint was decided on the basis of treating Elane Photography strictly as a business. The New Mexico Human Rights Act forbids “any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to any person because of . . . sexual orientation.”

But is a wedding photographer strictly offering a business service? Photography is considered a form of artistic expression, and wedding photographers hold the copyright for their work. In this instance, putting a seal of approval on same-sex marriage might end up requiring a legal definition of what is art and what is a service, aside from the question of whether a person can be compelled to produce either.

While the courts and voters around the country decide to what extent they’re willing to redefine marriage, they might consider how many First Amendment rights they want to redefine in the process. Talk about a minefield!